220 19624 article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?David_Rodr=C3=ADguez_Ibeas?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: try_realloc Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 13:36:47 +0100 Lines: 154 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <30f59ec7-0712-48fb-9df0-d66e3fe80c3c@isocpp.org> <2839762.j35TZXxY8Y@tjmaciei-mobl4> <20150802102813.GA6177@noemi.bahnhof.se> <7C86EFA3-F6B3-44B4-9B36-C2B583EBE43F@gmail.com> <15d79bb1-61b2-496d-ad8d-22d2c441b538@isocpp.org> <4D9A3974-B2CE-4C92-9C1E-10213AB67C53@gmail.com> <20150803000847.GA7843@noemi.bahnhof.se> <26ef5632-2004-498b-8212-f9cb8b7ad451@isocpp.org> <04258155-8308-4701-97ed-c7d49b2990e2@isocpp.org> <3388d6e8-41db-4e47-8b9d-96c0855601b4@isocpp.org> <09c795da-30c4-46b3-b136-25a1ccc1429a@isocpp.org> <71c17dab-80ba-4ee6-b536-0b47f40b54ea@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11c264be238615051c7b8ac9 X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1438691814 6237 80.91.229.3 (4 Aug 2015 12:36:54 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 4 Aug 2015 12:36:54 +0000 (UTC) To: "std-proposals@isocpp.org" Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDIIVO6GQULBBYHDQKXAKGQEJGLYRWY@isocpp.org Tue Aug 04 14:36:54 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-la0-f72.google.com ([209.85.215.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZMbSc-0001gh-8T for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 14:36:50 +0200 Original-Received: by lady2 with SMTP id y2sf3727849lad.1 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=EDwUOOEkxeXFOzKxGWVc6mruBt9UDAECY5ejTC3vaZI=; b=AEKE2gJT8sc/z0lzZ3OqrDJzQkkqqJrTA3mOPm2c/qo63ZcuwcCCsJuNlgtCnjI4C7 1eDWz4STAVlU+pLmHaQs9E/uYcy1v/9fklWF2nCT6rkEyPnLA12XEAfDkCUtk5a8kbID IlT07Tcw6BWxtTG3PTbS56330BtV+FyeujDG0GdWqUOHfvRUTUfmg+gDnbqYXOTjDPKo y7sKTy1jvAhzCvj4SPPBYUEDXU+JhP1g0/Xu76y9uw05YJK1RLwi+WLPOgI7bpp51QPI 2FvEh5BhR03Sq5IiJ5HpkpXAC750DtHVc1xyYDAW6h+XkJJixDoU6eorCnC5z3RLoGw/ SsZg== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmRTCz9CVxeSGFga4o5V9VLvq4HqNlJm+8JcZjJ74y4tCnZTvK0+3HwYGE0zPMxwjicxvIU X-Received: by 10.180.39.75 with SMTP id n11mr279791wik.0.1438691809775; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:49 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.152.5.67 with SMTP id q3ls38669laq.78.gmail; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.152.87.169 with SMTP id az9mr3183487lab.46.1438691807803; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Received: from mail-la0-x22b.google.com (mail-la0-x22b.google.com. [2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id p11si600089lal.55.2015.08.04.05.36.47 for (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b as permitted sender) client-ip=2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b; Original-Received: by labsr2 with SMTP id sr2so6182168lab.2 for ; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.112.199.133 with SMTP id jk5mr3257408lbc.32.1438691807690; Tue, 04 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) Original-Sender: dribeas@gmail.com Original-Received: by 10.152.43.170 with HTTP; Tue, 4 Aug 2015 05:36:47 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <71c17dab-80ba-4ee6-b536-0b47f40b54ea@isocpp.org> X-Original-Sender: dibeas@ieee.org X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of dribeas@gmail.com designates 2a00:1450:4010:c03::22b as permitted sender) smtp.mail=dribeas@gmail.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:19624 Archived-At: --001a11c264be238615051c7b8ac9 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 This is much more polite than other messages, but that does not make it right. On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:19 PM, wrote: > What I'm saying, basically, is that what you have here is a type of court. > This court has its laws, its procedures; it has case law that needs to be > studied (past proposals); it has its judges and its juries. > > Right now, it seems as though you're expecting everyone who brings a case > to not only represent themselves; but also to learn the ins and the outs of > the court, just like veteran participants. A person who brings a proposal > is expected to learn the court's laws, the procedures, to study the case > law, and to express their proposal in terms that are legally correct and > accurate. No quarter is given to those that cannot, or will not. > False. You came with an idea (not novel, but an idea) and the idea has been partly discussed --the discussion is pretty much washed off due to your deviation from technical discussion into useless attacks that have probably offended people that volunteer their own personal time for *you* (and 10 other million) people. The idea is not being ignored. What you need in this court system is - lawyers. By that, I don't mean > people who argue for the sake of arguing. I mean attorneys: people who can > represent clients, who provide an interface between the public and the > court. People who can take a case, and represent that case properly in > front of the court. > You can discuss how you view the solution, and you can convince people in the list of its value. If it is valuable I am sure that some of the people here that are in the committee may volunteer to champion it. Your problem is that you have not convinced and you cannot coerce them into defending your idea. That is the point, after personal attacks, when you've been suggested to go and defend the idea yourself. Right now, you don't have that interface. Which means that, nominally, your > process is open; *aaanyone* can participate (wink wink). But in fact, you > have a brick wall of statutory law, case law, and procedure, all of which > have to be followed to achieve anything; and which keep out anyone but the > most committed. > Don't confuse terms, a process is open if people can participate. Openness does not mean that it is cost-free, and clearly it does not mean that you get your say, just that you get to say it. There are different ways of working with this, you can convince people here, or you can go to your national body and convince them to defend your case... but any of those depends on your approach being viable. Unless you can make your approach work within the language there is little hope for your particular view of how the feature is laid out. At any rate I feel that the idea will progress in one form or another because it is a good idea and good ideas are valued. Even if one of the people defending it is offensive. David > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. --001a11c264be238615051c7b8ac9 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
This is much more polite than o= ther messages, but that does not make it right.

On Tue, Aug 4, 2015 at 1:19 PM, <isocppgroup@denisbider.c= om> wrote:
What I'm saying, basically, is that what you have here is a type = of court. This court has its laws, its procedures; it has case law that nee= ds to be studied (past=C2=A0proposals); it has its judges and its juries.

Right now, it seems as though you're expecting = everyone who brings a case to not only represent themselves; but also to le= arn the ins and the outs of the court, just like veteran participants. A pe= rson who brings a proposal is expected to learn the court's laws, the p= rocedures, to study the case law, and to express their proposal in terms th= at are legally correct and accurate. No quarter is given to those that cann= ot, or will not.

False. You cam= e with an idea (not novel, but an idea) and the idea has been partly discus= sed --the discussion is pretty much washed off due to your deviation from t= echnical discussion into useless attacks that have probably offended people= that volunteer their own personal time for *you* (and 10 other million) pe= ople. The idea is not being ignored.

What you need in this court system i= s - lawyers. By that, I don't mean people who argue for the sake of arg= uing. I mean=C2=A0attorneys: people who=C2=A0can represent clients, who pro= vide an interface between the public and the court.=C2=A0People who can tak= e a case, and represent that case properly in front of the court.

You can discuss how you view the solutio= n, and you can convince people in the list of its value. If it is valuable = I am sure that some of the people here that are in the committee may volunt= eer to champion it. Your problem is that you have not convinced and you can= not coerce them into defending your idea. That is the point, after personal= attacks, when you've been suggested to go and defend the idea yourself= ..

<= div>Right now, you don't have that interface. Which means that, nominal= ly, your process is open; aaanyone can participate (wink wink).=C2= =A0But in fact, you have a brick wall of statutory law, case law, and proce= dure,=C2=A0all of which have to be followed to achieve anything; and which= =C2=A0keep out anyone but the most committed.
=
Don't confuse terms, a process is open if people can participate. O= penness does not mean that it is cost-free, and clearly it does not mean th= at you get your say, just that you get to say it. There are different ways = of working with this, you can convince people here, or you can go to your n= ational body and convince them to defend your case... but any of those depe= nds on your approach being viable.

Unless you can make your approach= work within the language there is little hope for your particular view of = how the feature is laid out.=C2=A0 At any rate I feel that the idea will pr= ogress in one form or another because it is a good idea and good ideas are = valued. Even if one of the people defending it is offensive.

=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 David
=C2=A0

=

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
--001a11c264be238615051c7b8ac9-- .